Democrats look well-positioned to pick up a House seat in the MS-1. Trouble with ending the nominating context for the presidency aside, the fact does remain that the underlying fundamentals are very favorable to Democrats this year.
« Expectations | Main | Still Down With O'Hanlon »
Meanwhile, In Mississippi
23 Apr 2008 09:51 am
Comments (9)
Question - I may not be smart enough, but isn't there some type of contradiction in the Clinton's claims that the popular vote total should matter more than states won and their claims that her wins in big states no matter the percentage split (TX and MO come to mind) as evidence that she can win there in the fall? It seems to me that either the total popular vote should count OR which states you happen to actually win should count, but you should be called out for being intellectually dishonest if you play it both ways.
Shouldn't the first comment above be deleted for violating the Atlantic's comment policies?
As for the fundamentals, sure, they favor the Dems, and the Dems will pick up a lot of congressional seats. But a Dem president is looking much less likely every day, and Bush and the GOP minority have shown how easily a GOP president and a GOP minority can dominate a Dem congressional majority in this political and media climate. They also have the Supreme Court in their back pocket for a generation. The GOP has to be ecstatic about the Clinton-Obama bloodbath; it's probably the only way McCain can get elected.
Shouldn't the first comment above be deleted for violating the Atlantic's comment policies?
As for the fundamentals, sure, they favor the Dems, and the Dems will pick up a lot of congressional seats. But a Dem president is looking much less likely every day, and Bush and the GOP minority have shown how easily a GOP president and a GOP minority can dominate a Dem congressional majority in this political and media climate. They also have the Supreme Court in their back pocket for a generation. The GOP has to be ecstatic about the Clinton-Obama bloodbath; it's probably the only way McCain can get elected.
My apologies for the double-posting, but I keep geting "internal server error" messages the first time I try to post. This happened yesterday also.
Being that competitive in such a district is amazing. I wonder what the argument is against the incumbent? Is it really just that he's a Republican?
While there's a lot of sniping between the contenders for the nomination, there's also a lot of voter registering and canvassing going on. The Democrats have just spent $40 million locating a lot of voters in Pennsylvania and finding out what motivates them. Those lists aren't going to the dumpsters this morning. That's going to pay dividends in November --- and not just in the Presidential race.
The turnout in this primary came close to the number of votes John Kerry got in the general election in 2004. While I wish the Clinton campaign weren't sounding so Republican, they're also turning a lot of Republican talking points into "old news". Over all, I think this long primary is a wonderful gift to the Democrats.
beckya57, I've seen your argument around the blogosphere, and I have to ask: can you cite me one election in history where a party picked up a substantial number of House seats while losing the presidency? Only on the rarest of occasions has the presidential winner seen his party lose even a few seats (one of them, 1960, came in the wake of massive party gains in the preceding election, not a factor this time out for McCain). It's the same feeling I get when I hear/see folkd say "people hate Bush but Bush isn't on the ballot so McCain's a fresh slate" -- tell that to the replacement candidates incumbent parties put up in 1896, 1920, 1952 and 1968. Voters punish failure, and the GOP failure is beyond obvious. If people are going to make contrary assertions, they really ought to supply some historic precedent for them. Otherwise it's just baseless gut-opining.
Which is my way of saying, Tune out the media and their traditional "the Dems are destroying themselves" mantra. The party in trouble this year is the incumbent party with an endless, despised war and an economy that's cratering in a way terrifying to everyone outside the Wall Street/DC bubble. Nothing that's said between Clinton and Obama, however amplified by the press, will keep that from being the basis on which the November election is decided.
dm - right on. My worry is that as the Congressional outlook becomes better and better, swing voters will feel more comfortable voting for McCain knowing that the D's will have a solid Congressional lock. The US seems to like divided government for some reason.
-j
Comments closed May 07, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
FAVORABLE TO DEMOCRATS? NOT IF BARRACK HUSSEIN AL-OSAMA AL-OBAMA BIN TRAITOR GETS THE NOMINATION ARE AMERICANS REALY GOING TO VOTE FOR A MUSLIM AMERICA-HATER WITH A RACIST PREACHER NO!!!!!!!!!! HILLARY LOVES AMERICA AND IS NOT ELITE OBAMA IS ELITE AND THINKS WE ARE BITTER WE ARE NOT BITTER WE LOVE OUR COUNTRY WE ONLY WANT IT TO GET BETTER AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO PUT A WOMAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE NOT A MUSLIM LIBERAL WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT OF ISLAMLAND LOL GOD BLESS AMERICA GOD BLESS HILLARY CLINTON GOD DAMN BARACK HUSSEIN OSAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by LesbiansForHillary | April 23, 2008 10:11 AM